Bay Bridge drivers need complete answers

The structural integrity of the Bay Bridge's eastern span was called into question after the public learned of cracked rods and corroded steel tendons.

The structural integrity of the Bay Bridge's eastern span was called into question after the public learned of cracked rods and corroded steel tendons.

Photo: Paul Kitagaki Jr., McClatchy-Tribune News Service

Photo: Paul Kitagaki Jr., McClatchy-Tribune News Service

Image
1of/3

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 3

The structural integrity of the Bay Bridge's eastern span was called into question after the public learned of cracked rods and corroded steel tendons.

The structural integrity of the Bay Bridge's eastern span was called into question after the public learned of cracked rods and corroded steel tendons.

Photo: Paul Kitagaki Jr., McClatchy-Tribune News Service

Bay Bridge drivers need complete answers

1 / 3

Back to Gallery

It has come to this: The most compelling reason to open the new $6.4 billion eastern span of the Bay Bridge is not that its design and materials are indisputably state of the art in seismic safety. The main argument for moving ahead in the absence of answers about its structural integrity is that it is undeniably safer than the current span whose failure in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake was the very reason for this enormous investment.

Caltrans has done little to bolster public confidence. The Chronicle and Sacramento Bee reported on everything from cracked rods and the corrosion of steel tendons to the curing of concrete in the structure. Now that everyone knows about the world-class screw-ups, Caltrans exhibits a baffling attitude. Something always goes wrong in a big project, its officials say - trust the professionals to fix it.

But the public cannot and should not trust Caltrans, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission or the assurances of Gov. Jerry Brown that the new span will not open unless it is safe. First Caltrans must fully explain what went wrong and who is responsible.

DeSaulnier wants to know who exactly decided to use high-strength galvanized steel fasteners, even though the state banned the use of galvanized fasteners on other bridges. There are 2,306 such bolts and rods, with 400 installed at the base of the span's signature tower. Also, the letter asked, what is the likelihood that bolts which seem functional today will remain so over time, as the steel continues to be exposed to water?

Those issues need to be addressed even if it makes sense to open the new span as scheduled on Labor Day weekend because the old span is at undisputed risk of catastrophic failure in a major earthquake.

We would like to add another question:

Who warned that there might be problems and are those courageous individuals satisfied with the new fixes? Also, Californians who are picking up the tab for this star-crossed project are right to demand to know whether certain politicians' demand for a signature design - we're looking at you, former Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown - put engineering challenges on the project that the state could not meet.

As governor, surely Brown can direct state officials to answer DeSaulnier's questions. He and the California Legislature also can - and should - order an independent assessment of the question that is on the minds of the drivers who are now paying $3 toward the project on each westbound trip, and will continue to do so for many years to come: "How safe is it?"